Gujarat HC acquits man in 2012 Tharad double murder and robbery case

Gujarat High Court has quashed the conviction and life imprisonment awarded to Viha Patel by the Diyodar Sessions Court in a high-profile 2012 double murder and robbery case from Tharad in Banaskantha district.

A single-judge bench acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the Sessions Court had erred in convicting the accused  for the offences under Sections 302 (murder), 392 (robbery), 397 (robbery with deadly weapon), and 449 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case dates back to January 11, 2012, the prosecution alleged that the accused entered the home of Devsi Patel and his wife Demaben Patel in Tharad with intent to commit robbery. Armed with a sharp weapon, he allegedly murdered the couple and looted gold and silver ornaments from Demaben valued at around Rs 50,000. An FIR was lodged at Tharad Police Station following the incident.

The trial court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of ornaments at his instance and alleged bloodstains on his clothes matching the deceased.

However, the high court found several critical gaps in the prosecution's case. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime. The witness nephew of the deceased, testified that he last saw the accused and the victims together while returning from a temple, where they appeared to be sitting together. 

The court observed that the "last seen together" theory did not conclusively establish the accused guilt.

While ornaments were recovered purportedly on the accused’s instance, the court emphasized that such recovery alone is insufficient without strict compliance with proceduralrequirements under the CrPC, particularly when the site was accessible to others or in a public place. Reliance on such evidence was deemed suspicious and unreliable.

Defence counsel argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence remained incomplete, with no direct link tying to the accused exclusively to the crime. Even the testimony of the deceased's nephew, who saw the two together on the day of the incident, did not complete the chain of circumstances required in such cases.

The public prosecutor contended that the recovery of blood-stained ornaments and clothes established the prosecution's case, justifying the Sessions Court's verdict. Rejecting these arguments, the high court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by trial court.